[council] RE: GNSO Review

Wed Aug 3 15:04:07 UTC 2005

Thanks, Liz. I am interested to discuss what and whether other models apply and how they can be extended to ICANN. :we are all familiar with how hard it is to force fit something unique into a Kstandard". 

Could you perhaps share your ideas on that front? Among the SoO are ind. From so many different "groups" including CENTR, APTLD, ITU, APEC, ISIOC, IETF, W3C, and national societies. It would be useful to discuss how models are understood as regards ICANN. Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams at icann.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:22:31 
To:"'Grant FORSYTH'" <Grant.Forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz>
Cc:"'GNSO.SECRETARIAT at GNSO.ICANN.ORG'" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>,       <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review

Thanks Grant.

Yes, I have approached all councilors and the two liaisons.  I am always happy if people wish to send their responses through the council list.  Am also happy to receive direct responses  as much to minimize my inbox as anything else!

Yes, good suggestion on the purpose of collecting data.  I will add that to the equations which are emerging.

Yes, there are four initial sections but do feel free to add where you need to.  This is a very early phase effort to help us all flush out where we need to be.

Yes, on the purpose statement  I have called it a rationale and I have added correct references where needed.   I will also include, if it helps Council, some other models where this type of review has been done in other industry self-regulatory environments.  You may have some specific suggestions here with respect to your experience in the telecoms industry in NZ  I cant remember what review was most recently done but perhaps you could advise?

Kind regards.

Liz

From: Grant FORSYTH [mailto:Grant.Forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz] 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:28 PM
 To: Liz Williams
 Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT at GNSO.ICANN.ORG; council at gnso.icann.org
 Subject: RE: GNSO Review

Hi Liz

Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the TOR.

While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would 'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable responding transparently through Council and would wish that other Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?] other Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency is important to the GNSO.

I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another 'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed.

I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).

I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review.

If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be most useful.

In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that you have proposed be the framework for data gathering.

(Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?)

Regards

Grant Forsyth 
 Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs 
 TelstraClear 
 Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads 
 Private Bag 92143 
 AUCKLAND 
 ph +64 9 912 5759 
 fx + 64 9 912 4077 
 Mb 029 912 5759 

-----Original Message-----
 From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams at icann.org]
 Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44
 To: Grant FORSYTH
 Subject: GNSO Review

Grant

You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting some initial thoughts and would appreciate your input.  

Just to recap the timing first.  We have to have ready for the VCR Board meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take place in early 2006.  The exact timing is yet to be established but, based on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper papers.  That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts, first draft and final draft ready.  I will prepare a project map in the next couple of days that will include all these critical dates.  I will circulate that when we have the early thoughts phase completed.

As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to inform the questions which need answering.

I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts.  Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received.

  Operational      - most objective of the categories.  Based on facts and figures about      voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types and kinds of      meetings.   (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed      our conversation)  Effectiveness      --  partly objective/partly subjective.  Need to look at time      lines for consideration of issues.  Need to also consider, once      policy is made, is it implemented easily, quickly.  What compliance      issues are there?  What is balance between policy compliance and, for      example, need for binding contract.  Relationships      - partly objective/partly subjective.  Need to examine relationships      with the board, with staff, with other SOs.  Need to look at internal      relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the constituencies      representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating      positions/views/diversity of opinion).  How does work get done; are      the existi!
 ng processes and procedures working and effective.  What      measures should we use to answer those questions?   Need work      here on identifying breakages in the system.  For example, should      there be closer/more supportive/more direct staff intervention?      Should there be broader constituency membership to spread consultation      mechanisms?  Perceptual - the most      subjective of the four categories.  Need questions around perceptions      of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of external bodies \ and      internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs.   Measuring      this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. 

I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation, plurality of views, openness of processes.  I have been reviewing each of the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course, different!

At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of whom I've been able to catch by phone.  I will then bring those responses together into a first draft.  I am also using this model to seek views from the staff and others. 

I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks down the track.  You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below.

Kind regards.

Liz

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

Tel:  +32 2 234 7874

Fax:  +32 2 234 7848

Mob:  +61 414 26 9000

Regards,
Marilyn Cade